A number of generalisations of the notion of a word-representable graph are based on the observation by
Jeff Remmel that non-edges are defined by occurrences of the pattern 11 (two consecutive equal letters) in a word representing a graph, while edges are defined by avoidance of this pattern. For example, instead of the pattern 11, one can use the pattern 112, or the pattern, 1212, or any other binary pattern where the assumption that the alphabet is ordered can be made so that a letter in a word corresponding to 1 in the pattern is less than that corresponding to 2 in the pattern. Letting
u be an ordered binary pattern we thus get the notion of a '''
u-representable graph
. So, word-representable graphs are just the class of 11-representable graphs. Intriguingly, any graph'
can be u
-represented assuming u'' is of length at least 3. Another way to generalise the notion of a word-representable graph, again suggested by Remmel, is to introduce the "degree of tolerance"
k for occurrences of a pattern
p defining edges/non-edges. That is, we can say that if there are up to
k occurrence of
p formed by letters
a and
b, then there is an edge between
a and
b. This gives the notion of a
k-
p-representable graph, and
k-11-representable graphs are studied in. Note that 0-11-representable graphs are precisely word-representable graphs. The key results in are that
any graph is 2-11-representable and that word-representable graphs are a proper subclass of 1-11-representable graphs. Whether or not any graph is 1-11-representable is a challenging open problem. For yet another type of relevant generalisation,
Hans Zantema suggested the notion of a '''
k-semi-transitive orientation'
refining the notion of a semi-transitive orientation. The idea here is restricting ourselves to considering only
directed paths of length not exceeding k'' while allowing violations of semi-transitivity on longer paths. ==Open problems==